Skip to main content

tv   Christian Science Monitor Breakfast with Tom Daschle and Trent Lott  CSPAN  December 6, 2014 10:30pm-11:31pm EST

10:30 pm
happened midway through the year. frustration and that deep concern even, anger, turned to resolve, turned to commitment. then turned to action. that action produced positive results tonight. [applause] that is the way democracy is supposed to work. that is the way it did work tonight. all of you, by turning that for a station and action, all of you made history by electing bill cassidy as our new u.s. senator. [applause] congratulations and thank you.
10:31 pm
ladies and gentlemen, the doctor is in the house. he is going to the senate. i guarantee you he and i will stand tall. we won't stand with president obama 90% of the time. we are going to stand together with you 100% of the time. , givecelebrate tonight thanks to god, and get it tomorrow morning to fight and take back this country.
10:32 pm
ladies and gentlemen. the man of the hour. kenny davidson. [laughter] >> i can tell you bill cassidy is not only an honorable representative, not only a great , but a loving granddaddy. he is a man of character. he has the hearts of people of louisiana. for those who wonder if elected officials represent us, it is my privilege tonight introduced to you a man who was pro-life, profamily, and committed to creating jobs in a better louisiana. , our next u.s.
10:33 pm
senator, bill cassidy. [applause] [chanting] >> where did you come from? [laughter] [chanting] victory belongs to you. thank you. [applause] this victory happened because people in louisiana voted for a government which serves us but
10:34 pm
does not tell us what to do. think about it. on december the fourth, the american people sent a message that they did not like the direction our country was going in. saying you room are are putting an exclamation mark on that message. we want our country to go in a conservative direction. [applause] where the patients have the power. where we have no shame in using american natural resources to create better jobs for working families.
10:35 pm
we, the people, have the power, and not the federal government. you sent that message. thank you very much. [applause] i have a lot of people to thank. certainly the staff and volunteers. [applause] people injust have louisiana. alaskans, people from connecticut, massachusetts. we have texans, oklahomans. iowa. we had people -- [indiscernible] [laughter] this was an american victory.
10:36 pm
they will make sure the louisiana [indiscernible] [applause] speaking of shout outs, the senator helped us. a big shout out. [applause] where are you? [applause] this is not about either of us. it is that our country. up in ourem ended
10:37 pm
conservative movement because it is not about one of us. it is about the future of our country. thanks to those who got it. [applause] congressman, who grew the party. [applause] and i have to thank my family. my mother, my brother-in-law, my son could not make it today. my daughters.
10:38 pm
my wife. my grandchild. my brothers, my extended family. all of you. not -- lauren i could not have done this without you are super -- support, your contributions, your sign waving, r bumper stickers. i received a call from senator landrieu. meciously, she congratulated . she wished my family well. senator landrieu should be thanked for her service to our state and our country. my message of support to senator , i don't care that you voted for senator landrieu. i'm here to serve you.
10:39 pm
we can unite. [applause] we have a lot of challenges. is tomitment to you listen and learn from you so that we together can address those challenges for our state and country. it is not about us. it is about the united states of america. caresf you in this room about our country deeply. i am honored to be the person you elected to express those concerns. we have lots of work to do. but tonight is a night of celebration. god bless you.
10:40 pm
god bless conservatives. [indiscernible] god bless you. god bless you louisiana. god bless the united states of america. [applause]
10:41 pm
♪ [indiscernible chatter] >> we just heard from congressman bill cassidy, now senator elect bill cassidy. he defeats three term senate democrat mary landrieu. republicans are the projected winners in the two house races that were being decided in louisiana today. you've been watching live coverage on c-span. programill return to a hosted by the christian science monitor with former senate leader tom dashiell.
10:42 pm
both leaders are a part of the bipartisan policy senate . we would turn >> president obama sided the transpacific partnership and trade infrastructure is areas for bipartisan action. what would top your list of best possibilities for bipartisan action, if any? >> i do think strayed one that they have a good opportunity to and need to work together. it can get off track, if members of congress see the negotiations particularly with the age and negotiations. if they go too far and the area. republicans will react to that. or if they don't go far enough.
10:43 pm
democrats will have a problem with it, there's a delicate balance there. to the administration's credit, they are reaching out in the a bipartisan way. both to congress, members of congress and some former members of congress. talk about how this can be done. we were involved in doing it with nafta. the problem is you get a debate, and 60 votes are required on the trade promotion authority, the fast track, but the actual vote is only 51 votes. so members are going to be a little jumpy before they know the final product, you know, we're going to give this fast track authority where there's no amendments, you debate in a fine a. times under the rules and sthen you vote. i'm very much an advocate of the t tip. the one in europe. there are complications with both of them, had problems of course with japan on automobiles and agriculture products and there'll be projects in europe
10:44 pm
and will not want to put some things on the table. i know that mitch mcconnell will be wanting to be helpful and move that forward. i also think tax reform is possible. i think they kind of tripped over things last week. they were getting close to having the big $400 billion tax extender package with making some of the extenders permanent and in the president threatened a veto and it fell apart. now they're using a tax extenders. to save the bigger debate so have more pressure to get a tax reform and extenders in a pack anl next year. i don't know. i'm a little nervous because it seems like every time they get started in the right direction, something trips it up. and they lose the momentum, but it needs to be a comprehensive package. it is about jobs and the economy. i really hope they'll do that.
10:45 pm
i think there's a good possibility in the energy area. you know, they're going to have to deal with some of the energy areas. we recommended that the bipartisan policy center, some reforms that would put somebody in charge of energy policy, nobody's really in charge. how many, like 17 agencies, commissions, and bureaus and departments deal with energy. nobody has the con as they would say in navy. inthat's a possibility. obviously -- i think that's a possibility. obviously transportation. i think that'ssg possibility well because you have the aviation, faa is expiring next year. we have to do something about the me a trust fund. i would hope they would get serious about dealing with the need for money and how you do that, there are not many options on the table. but, bill is one of the best legislators in the congress, and
10:46 pm
he's got good helpers, good legislators on the senate side. we have seen barbara boxer shown the ability to get bills through a committee. working with jim and dave. now, if barbara boxer andday move infrastructure in the past, that's pretty impressive, and you add bill on the house side, there's a great potential, but i hope that they will do as they talked about, go back to regular order. quit running everything out of the speaker's office or the leaders office. you got chairmen and chair women that are very confident. let them do the job, have hearings and investigations and mark ups and votes on amendments. move it to the familiar. raise held, have a great debate, stay in late, stay in on saturday and vote on amendments and quit acting like a bunch of chickens when you have a six year term. i'm hopeful that things will move. immigration, they got to do that. we should have done it in 2007
10:47 pm
it's one of the most disappointing experiences i ever had as a member of the senate. the amount of cowardice i saw exhibited in 2007 on the immigration bill was extremely disappointing to me. it was one of the things that attributed to my decision to move on and do something else. i hope they'll come back to it. they can do it in pieces, i fray they try to do the big gulp, they'll choke on it. and they could move it in three pieces, but there's got to be three. you have to do the border security. you have to do the visa situation, h 2 a's or whatever those are. what is the appropriate way to deal here in a fair reasonable way, but do it in such a way where it can't be defined as am necessary fip that's a delicate -- amnesty. that's a delicate balance. >> i agree with the with regard of the potential lists. i'd add one that is somewhat counterintuitive, i'm sure everybody at the table, that's health care. i'm sure there's a list of health care initiatives that could enjoy broad bipartisan support, i would start with the relegal and the replace of sgr.
10:48 pm
the sustainable growth rate. 51-0 vote in the house commerce committee earlier this year. and i think it's clearly something that everyone recognizes, need to be addressed. the children's health insurance program expires, and so, most of you know, it always enjoyed broad bipartisan support. i think telehealth, there's a lot of recognition of the importance of telehealth, not only in rural areas, but urban as well. a whole array of new services to be offered through electronic communication. in addition to that, there's a number of issues affecting diabetes. we have 29 million americans who have diabetes, 86 million americans who have prediabetes, at a cost. $322 billion a year and there are a number of things we can do on prevention, protection, and equipment for diabetes that already have enjoyed bipartisan support.
10:49 pm
a number of areas having to do with health. i think the potential for bipartisan is quite high. >> we have a deal with sunflower county, one of the poorest counties in the entire country with diabetes. by this use of telemedicine, they're monitoring people that aren't are diabetics a and they have diet problems, check their blood pressure, they work with them, make sure you take your medication. talk to them about what they should be eating or not eating. and they're doing this all by medicine, remotely done, it's 120 miles away. where there's no local doctor in the county. so, there's really a lot of exciting things that could happen in the medical area through the use of medicine. >> just to make the point that there are a lot of issues in the queue. and a lot of issues that
10:50 pm
actually had some bipartisan momentum over the last few years that frankly got choked out by the really, i think destructive relationship as you move forwards leadership. i think the assertion that we have to let the committees do their work is really essential, and there's a whole strap that of issues. i just mentioned a few of them. energy efficiency, it has been sitting there. senators blunt and brown have legislation on advanced manufacturing. postal reform. something that people actually would feel sitting on the table and it said bipartisan support. and so i think, we don't have to start from zero. there is a misperception that congress across the board that has collaboration. that's true at the highest levels, it's not really true within the rank and file.
10:51 pm
so in addition to some of the big issues, see if you can swallow the square mill on health care, there are two things i would mention, oil exports. this is a fantastic issue. because it kind of explodes the 30 year structure of energy legislation which was based around light blue sweaters and scarcity and fear of the 1970s, we now live in an era of incredible energy abundance. oil exports is one way to think about it, and it's a new issue. people are not entrenched. >> might also mention, liquefied natural gas. we have anga back here. >> the good news is it doesn't require congress. it's movingings forward already, but the last point i'll mention. technical corrections, modest adjustments, but bring those bills back into the forum.
10:52 pm
>> the associated press. >> thank you very much. >> the senator mentioned cowardice in the congressional some years ago. and that's a term here in the gridlock. they are not willing to risk some static back home. i'm wondering if, the american voter, had in your time of looking at american politics and government, have you seen a change, are americans less willing to take some dings on paying taxes or having a limit on social security and medicare, that sort of thing? or is this all a reaction within congress itself? >> i actually think that the american people are willing to be led, if they can be shown that in so doing, america can be elevated to a higher level in public policy or in ultimate objectives.
10:53 pm
so i, i think there is as jason so eloquently talked about earlier, there's far more transparency today. and we've always known that the legislative sausage-making is never pret fip and i think -- pretty. and i think we see that elevated state of sausage making and people repel from that or the lack of sausage making in many cases because of the transparency that exists. to a certain extent, there's a reluctance on the part of members to deal and to come up with compromise in part because so much of it is so much more transparent than ever in the past. used to cut deals.
10:54 pm
we used to, you know, and frankly, earmarks were part of deal cutting. you could trade things that members needed back home for the attorneys. it wasn't pretty, but it worked. now we don't do any of that, in part because of transparency, in part because of reaction to earmarks that understandably generated the last several years. >> you know, i agree with everything tom just said. these are different times, these are different people. i do think, you know, there's a little bit too much, everybody looking to appeal to their base boat. whether their far left or far right. and i never was one that hung around in the middle. but i also think that people yearn for somebody, their elected officials to lead. to try get things done. try to explain to them why they're doing what they're doing. i voted for a separate department of education, and i knew my constituents at the time, this was when i was still in the house did not agree with me.
10:55 pm
but i did the same time that i indicated what the vote was and i voted for it, i explained why i did. even though i knew that 54% didn't agree with me. i never got any flak for that. they also knew when they elected me i had egts background, schoolteacher and working for the university of mississippi and all of that, but you know, the times are different, you know. people, social media's a part of it. and its gone beyond 24/7, it's explosive. and the media gets locked in on an issue and you really can't get away from it. my phones were jammed for a week or two, rush limbaugh gave out my phone number. i had to go to the office early, and when the phone would ring and i'd say hello. who are you calling? had them in a disadvantage immediately. i did it to see what they were going to say. during that process, i got three death threats. one from oregon, and a third one. so i mean it was ugly.
10:56 pm
but remember we lost that vote in 2007 on a procedural vote. and we, the counting i was doing, i was back in his whip, i thought we were going to be able to win that, but over the weekend, rush limbaugh labelled it amnesty, and labor got ahole of the democrats and said we don't want these workers coming in with the visas. so democrats were coming in voting no because of labor, the republicans were voting no because of amnesty from rush limbaugh. and i'm in the well of the senate with john kyle and lindsey graham, not two notorious liberals, but also ted kennedy, diane feinstein and harry reid. we were working the vote and we lors. that was one of the most mind boggling things i've ever seen. so it is harder now, i think. but, my attitude is, why would you want to come here if all you want to do is raise money and
10:57 pm
get reelected? why wouldn't you want to make a difference? when i hear some of the criticisms about, you know, i point out to some of it, held raisers now, when president and tom and i were leadership, we got welfare reform which we did a balanced budget, tax reform, we did major telecommunications forms, raised military pay. what among those is not a good thing? what among those is not conservative from some of my conservative friends? you know, i tell some of them, look, just to do nothing is not a conservative position. to change the direction of the country, you have to get an action. whether it's liberal, moderate, or democrat, you have to get something done. so it is harder now to do it. and you do run the risk of getting defeated, i guess, or
10:58 pm
losing your leadership position, but now it's easy for know say now, so what? at least you go down standing up as morgan freeman said in the movie "glory." standing up fighting for something. if you're going get your head chopped off politically, try to get something done. people want leadership. they want obama to reach out to mcconnell and for the speaker to reach out to the administration. talk. see where they can find some common ground. i think american people would react positively if they would see that. >> the one issue chuck, just to raise, this idea of not taking hard votes is just tragedy. the wonderful news is it didn't work. right. all the folks who senator reid were trying to protect by avoiding tough votes, virtually all of them lost. voting is not only what captures the possibility, but it's also what ventilates the anger. the body was created fundamentally to vote for things.
10:59 pm
and so, my hope is that the last election cycle where a lot of people were harmed by saying they were in lock step with the president will demonstrate that actually it's the political imperative is not to prevent people from voting so we have a constant si of 98%, but it's to allow them to differentiate themselves. that would be a major step forward if that sense of the political logic shifted. >> francine. >> my good friend and partner is typically john is talking about how ok, yeah well, the republicans have got the senate and they're going to have 54 votes, but they need six more. on a lot of issues, on most except budget, they need 60. and he's looking to see if there's a fulcrum appointed, if there's six democrats that might be willing to maneuver the way john used to. he used to give tom and me both heartburn because sometimes he was moving against me and the reverse. if that group of somewhat more
11:00 pm
moderate democrats decided we're going to be a part of trying to finding the 60th vote to get some things done, they could have a lot of influence around here. >> francine? >> so much has been talked about with mcconnell and what he will majority.michae i would like to ask about the flipside. into the what is his task as minority leader? >> i think it is to lead and ways to aheave some common ground -- achieve some common ground. week thatmething last i thought was encouraging. he said we are not going to get payback. if he meant that, and i assume he did, he always speaks heart, i -- from his heart, my guess is that they opportunities on the array of issues that we have
11:01 pm
already talked about where there rolely be common ground. it wouldn't have to take the six people that john is going to be looking for. for. do it with 60 or 70 on how democrats look at his goal. harry reid'sns interest to accomplish as much as we can in the final two years the obama administration. obama has two more years of opportunity and i find as i look the most productive years of of any administration are the final true. that is true of bill clinton. and you could argue about other presidents. there is a question very rich agenda here that could be addressed if we could find real cooperation. i have been encouraged. trent and i were talking about this before we aim in, i have encouraged by the signs of relationshipund between mitch mcconnell and harry reid.
11:02 pm
they seem to be talking more and coming up with agreements a little more freently and if wently and if that is any indication, i'm still -- even though it has to be shown, i'm still hopeful that we could really find some common ground year. >> he did say after he had been working to try to put together extenders big package and it fell apart he did say support just the one year extension which the house voted on overwhelmingly thatnote and he also said he can -- last night. he said that he could go with cromnibus which some people like. the c.r. would be a short-term homeland security. pacicallyhat he said realizing we have six or seven legislative days left this year probably the best we could get. encouraged by what he said on both of those. >> jim carol?
11:03 pm
itso have both of you here is tempting to spend the whole hour talking about your majority ands minority leaders and you could write a book about it and in you have.of thinking ahead to how mitch mcconnell is going to go vern, we don't know yet, but he says he wants to find common ground. advice oned for your becoming majority leader and what that is like? shouldond of all, what be his takeaway -- if you haven't talked to him what you give to him? >> i haven't talked to him since he attained the new position but obviously had hundreds of conversations with him over many years about this. i'm encouraged that one of his clay.eros is henry henry clay has always by iconic as a great compromiser, somebody who could bring sides together and if that is mitch in modern times, i'm
11:04 pm
encouraged by that. would also go back to his experience with marlo cook. cook was also somebody who found ample opportunity to work with people across the ail. ofhas a long history experience and commenters made this seems toay me are indicative of where his lies andlet hope that that can be reflected as he makes his decisions about leadership. these are as trent said, these are different times but i think meaningful to take leadership stepping up to the for ways to do things differently and i think he has that capacity. >> senator lott? talked to mitch as you might expect and have over the years. that majority leaders don't generally ask for advice very much. they tend to think they already know it. having said that, mitch really does have a long record of having been a staff
11:05 pm
member for john sherman cooper been in the senate as long as he has been, being in position both as whip and minority leader. how it can be ton and i think he will want -- can can be will want toink he take actions that will produce results. i'm confident of that. is easier said than done. as we have seen over the last couple of years, call up a bill and have a threat of filibuster and fill up the tree and everything falls apart. will run into some of that. mitch, when i was, you know, in leadership i was minority leader the last couple of years and i worked very closely with him. how to get it i think he is determined to move forward and so far i think what he has had to say has tone.ust right of all of the leaders in washington right now i think his tone has been the best.
11:06 pm
me.might expect that from when i'm saying that i'm saying people maybe have not had the right tone of either party. he will be an interesting study. makes a pin himself the -- point himself the three biggest deals made in the last four years were between mitch biden.ll and joe i understand in the white house they call joe biden the mcconnell whisperer. they served together and know how to make it work. is a valuable talent that we need more of and we need to of it.vantage >> david jackson, "usa today." >> talk about the white house, a lot of people are wondering what might have happened with the healthcare law if you had been charge of passing it? how do you think things might have been different had you been then? white house what is the future for obama care? of all, i have no failed to passe
11:07 pm
meaningful healthcare a century. for over the fact is we passed something in 2010 and i look back with great satisfaction. there are -- was it a perfect bill? absolutely not. know, i think most people how muchnderstand commonnallity there is. differencery little between republicans and democrats about the fact that we still have a cost problem. spend more on healthcare in the united states than india has g.d.p. or brazil or russia. costs have come down dramatically as a result in part affordableage of the care act. i would emphasize only in part but nonetheless, they have come down. an access problem. 30 million people are uninsured. we have serious quality problems. we don't even rhode island to
11:08 pm
rise to the top10. challenges we find very little disagreement. the causes are also areas for littlehere is disagreement and i think even the goal. we want to build a high high value healthcare marketplace better access and better quality and iser cost and i think there a great deal of consensus about that. those who oppose the affordable act really ought to be forced to do is say okay, if it going a.c.a., how are we to address cost, access and quality? achieve the high performance, high value healthcare marketplace? if it isn't this, what? very few critics came up with a plan that would allow us knowing that is a viable ail tentive. there are viable alternatives the table.ast on
11:09 pm
i'm hopeful that over time we can come to the realization affordableling the care act is jut not a viable option. ways to improve it certainly is and there is plenty of opportunities to do that. law asou think the written now will survive? >> i'm totally onfy dent that survive. it may not look the same as it does today. we made history in january and very little was said or done about it. but for the first time in all of history if you have a preexisting condition you can get health insurance. a preexisting condition you are noting if to be charged more than somebody else. if you are a woman you are not going to be charged more than a man. there are no more annual limits or lifetime limits. if you are a young adult you can sign up on your parent's plan. ones that things are i don't think the american people are going to ever be prepared to give up. have 20 million people now who have insurance who didn't have it before or didn't have
11:10 pm
that theyy of care have today. and i think within the next numberof years that could o easily be 50 million. a trend towards a change in the health paradigm of major consequence and the a.c.a. for good.think that. me comment on first of all, i think it would have been different if tom had secretary. wouldn't have been probably every republican voting fence it. to find have worked some way to make it a little more bipartisan. i think that congress next year vote to repeal it. i don't know whether it will be repeal or repeal to replace and to the they will send it president and he will veto it and then they will probably do two of three whacks at that time it. could do it in a block or may just -- they will come back to medical device tax. they will probably want to do mandates.about the ma
11:11 pm
so they are going to pick some pieces off. obviouslynt's credit, he won't like that but he did say correctly there never has been a bill passed that was perfect. maybe we could tweak it in a way that could be beneficial to the people. i don't think republicans paced on election cannot try to make some changes in obama care. add,vid, just to temperaturdemocratswant to make. >> medical device taxes. the interpretation about whether subsidies can flow to states that don't have state a significant concern unanticipated. and clarifying that language. really unintended consequence where folks in lower middle toss don't get access subsidies if they are getting insurance at work. there is a mutual desore to it and now if republicans repealingt as
11:12 pm
portions and democrats can as improving portions it might actually pass. >> the supreme court agreed to whether federal subsidies are legal under the law. it it,past ace underand these technical fixes to routine.on were fairly go back and say we have to clarify. major billlways on a we technical corrections almost immediately. >> so right now it looks like going to be political technicaler making a fix to the a.c.a. i'm wondering if you think that that is logical? i'm wondering if you guys would have done this differently had show?en running the and for senator lott specifically i'm wondering if you think republicans should to get rid ofge the ambiguity around federal subsidies? they shouldhink work at that. one of the things i'm looking for, who would be the leader in on the senate
11:13 pm
republicans or even democrat that would try to find a way to do some improvement without, you the bill.lishing whole line going to step up and do that? how will orrin hatch and ron widen work together? an interesting twosome to cope an eye on the next -- keep an eye on the next of years. i think they could rolely want to do some good things in the taxary andand in the might get out of control a bit with their leadership, too. a little in to be tee pendent sometime. withd to have to hassle s-chip.tch on the they are leaders, too. they earned the right to be rank and chairman of the finance committee clearly one of committees intant the congress. would encourage
11:14 pm
republicans to work on the technical side. >> i would. >> rick klein. you would agree whatever failings in leadership and whether you agree or with decision, rational actors making rational decisions whether to bring things up or compromise or not. where does the change have to generate itself? come from a different mindset a the top saying i know what i was a rationale decision to make but i'm going to change that in the interest or start in the middle with gangs or some kind of a consensus that grows from the middle out or voters that elect people that have the different mindset. they chingunless their minds you willle get more of the same. >> the new members in the senate pretty good group. you take a look at right across men andd, experienced women that have been in state militarybeen in the
11:15 pm
leaders, been in the house. so, you know, they didn't -- i don't think they came here and said we are going to blow this place up. this is a doer. think that i'm encouraged by the quality of the elected.ns that were but i'm a strong believer it begins at the top. has got to, you know, he got to engage more. he needs more people talking to him. and i don't think all of the him, you know. when i and thed to talk to clinton i picked up the phone called him or bush. so that goes, you know, people don't just say well, obama, he won't talk to him. what are they doing about that? to getsometimes you have around staff which i used to do and got me in a lot of trouble. it when ididn't like did that. i think that obama needs to lead and show movement.
11:16 pm
o'connell is determined to try to do that. would like to. he is still struggling with some conference members. but i think that is where it begins. >> i'm sorry. ahead, no. >> just to say i'm encouraged by the rhetoric that i heard during campaign about wanting toe wano better.hington work congress at an approval rating of 14% right now. turnout in 72er years. 36%. fore is ample reason everyone who got elected recently to want to make washington work better. two reasons we haven't talked about yet. of authorityosion and institutional pout power and house and the senate itself. the more they are dysfunctional more they cede power and authority to someone who isn't. cede the power to
11:17 pm
the president who takes executive action or two their ownwho do thing. they have to ask themselves. think anybody in that institution wants to be a -- guilty of that. alwayser is -- i am amazed as i travel abroad. i get asked why is washington so dysfunctional. as we try to convince the developing world that democratic toublics are the best way govern if we can't showcase it in washington how do we really make that case around the world? that is also something that going back to something we said earlier the transparency is not just within our own country, it is worldwide. that transparency
11:18 pm
continues to demonstrate the dysfunction of this city it an enormously powerful message to the rest of the world those who areof not allies of ours reason to suggest that they ought to be looking elsewhere for models for governance, not the united states. >> david, i want to add a couple of thoughts. the electorateat matters there was some shift. to see outcomes. it is also trou that the country a really deeply damaging greation that caused a amount of pain to tens of millions of people and that creates a lot of anger and i lot of what we have seen in the congress, i think some of captured by the tea party but not simply there has been an
11:19 pm
expression. and thankfully our economy is starting to click forward at a more predictable pace. externalhere are factors that help. we are social creatures and same of people we see all of the time at the b.p.c. can act horribly dysfunctional or incredibly collaborative ways based on the condition. mcconnellnator deserves a lot of credit and the words regular order are the if andnteresting words if you can explain it to the plows do.ublic, plows the schedule came out and does remarkable towards coordinating the house and senate so that they are operating at the same time. toward longer workweeks so we are not trying to run the country on wednesdays. of in stilling more authority in the committees spendpeople actually do time together matters a lot. the idea that members of some tripsould take
11:20 pm
together and should be supported by leadership. to kazakhstanht where people actually get to nosh other. i mentionedtly as in the opening comments the rules are going to change a little bit. think there was an incredibly significant step by the republican party to run high quality candidates in the mid term election. and it wast casual not quiet. incredibly aggressive effort that was very successful. and i hate the words "republican but the vast" majority want to legislate and i think those folks are tired of startction and you will to see it more aggressive response to an insurgent movement that changed the rules takes awhile to real illini that that has -- to realize that that has to happen. is not just bipartisanship. it is the folks who want to whoslate and the folks
11:21 pm
don't. i think the people who do are angry as much is the people who angry and you will start to see some shifts in the comment. happened inhat primaryppi, a ferocious which frankly floored me and one of the last lengthy with mitchns i had mcconnell he was talking to hayley barbour and saying get there and help and we tried but it was really, really tough. thad did survive and now chairman of the appropriations committee. some of the primaries are brutal sides. remember arkansas two years ago. through it all, i think on both sides we ki came up with pretty member.lity >> lat one, jackie. >> so many topics you touched on trades, a.c.a., that i wanted to get back and but i will draw them
11:22 pm
all together here i guess since this is the end. end. >> that is good. >> we used to think of it as a way, but -- >> and ju ask you both whether i these discussions in the very nature of your group center is thatcy it is like, on the one hand, and on the other hand, both sides are equally to blame. want to put to you i'm skeptical about a lot of what you said. eternal optimist and i'm the eternal skeptic because coming back to people who are in there now, ted cruz to to give, that are going you mentioned the people that will give boehner fits, just people on the senate side. is it my question is respond to that hasy or the idea been put forth most prominently by tom mann that we are at a more that the problem is
11:23 pm
on the republican side that there are more people like you come hereany people to stand their ground, not find common ground. basis of a lot of the primary fights is voters want people to stand their ground, not find common ground. tothere -- and i don't mean draw that out. you two were quite partisan in your time but on a whole different level now as you said in many different ways. address that question about whether one side is more to blame than the other? >> you might expect me to disagree with that and i do. look, there are problems. the economist had the map center was aow the circle of members worked in and ande was a clear purple then over the years became ohville and pulled apart and there is no enter. the ted cruz's of the world in the republican party and the elizabeth warrens world in the democratic
11:24 pm
party and she has quite a little friends i know there is a bill that was born that is bipartisan. couldn't get it moved said they won't let you do that. just a tweak of dodd frank this talking about. i do think we have a problem and it may be will clarify itself in i'm assuming that we will come up with a viable candidate and we will have a chance in the general election. one of the ways i answered that diplomatic as i can is i hope it is a governor or governor, period. in other words, no senators. >> just to add quickly. to see that senator berkeley would -- warren or berkeley with shut down the government or threaten over to get their way
11:25 pm
and that is the kind of action that is different. you never would have done that either. and i think the leadership is going to have to find a way to deal sparingly with some of these members. tote frankly, easy for me say now but i have a record to back it up, i wouldn't put up are some of the stuff they doing. the shutdown was some of the things i ever saw. i viewed it as a lie to the american people and i don't can tolerate you can give -- that is one of the things i miss about earmarks. was always athere way to give rewards and there was also punishment. you know, particularly the republican leader, has no carrots and no sticks. and not much you can do for or against anybody. it is a problem. i think mitch is going to have with that. deal mitch is a smooth operator. relationship he has
11:26 pm
evolved with rand paul. look at things i'm not as a candidate but says and does some things that can shock people. reaching out. so, but i also believe and i use up inord and wound washington post and i caught hell for it, but some of these new members i think the leadership should move quickly to co-op them. the loop and pull them in close to the leadership and don't let them drift over to the far right flank and they should have people specifically deputized to deal with specific new senators to make sure that they don't slip away from them. you can solve your problems sometimes by moving quickly to it is an issue and we will have a cavalry charge i guess in the republican primary president. but i hope at the end of the day we will come up with somebody that will actually have a hans chanceto get elected. >> want to weigh in on the blame before we end?
11:27 pm
>> i think mitch has a bigger and tactical challenge than harry does. there are a lot more people in with thes who come belief that standing you ground is the right thing to do who want to compromise and, you know, i think he has got a trent's advicend to mitch on that score is absolutely right. themore you can include, more you can engage, the more you can bring them in quickly is that thosey it stand your ground types will look at the advantages of ground.common but mitch has i think a bigger challenge right now than harry regard.that >> the only thing i would add is be all wrong.t if you are just look at congress there is some asymmetry. the white house to the mix then i think the balance reasonable. speaker boehner and nancy pelosi can pass any pose
11:28 pm
of legislation they want. and mitch mcconnell can pass any piece of legislation they want. the question is whether the leadership gives this amount of power to both. they have over the past few the resulte see that has been without question gridlock. i think there is some logic. not going to see it all the time some key votes you will start to see collaboration among intentionallyt is designed to isolate the edges. having thewill be same conversation in two years. >> extend an apology to my colleagues that we didn't get to. a number we didn't get to. for comingenators and thanks for doing this. appreciate it. i ask you a quick question on behalf of bill -- [captioning performed by the national captioning institute which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit]
11:29 pm
>> republican congress bill cassidy is the winner in the u.s. senate race in louisiana. defeats three-term senate democrat mary landrieu. republicans are also winners in the two house races tharp decided in louisiana. theave speeches by both of senate candidates. we begin with senator landrieu. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]
11:30 pm
>> what a crowd! [cheers and applause] >> thank you all for being here. all for being there every day. mynk you all for being at side with our family fighting for the right thing for louisiana. [cheers and applause] right. i just called congressman congratulate him after a long and tough campaign. i told him that representing the is theof this state greatest honor that anyone could ever have. [applause] >> the people of our state have while we were working and hoping and praying for a did different scout come i'm proud that our campaign wa


disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on